The Indiana Court of Appeals unanimously ruled Tuesday that Carmel can continue its annexation of Home Place.

Carmel has been trying to annex the area for more than a dozen years, part of its strategy to incorporate all of Clay Township. It's now the only township area not inside city limits.

Attorney Stephen Buschmann, who represents Home Place, said he and his clients are reviewing the ruling and have 30 days to determine how to proceed.

Matt Milam, leader of the Concerned Citizens for Home Place, said residents would vote Nov. 19 whether to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court. Milam, though, anticipates they will choose to keep fighting.

He said many residents fear that Mayor Jim Brainard could decide to redevelop the area, and they think he spends too much money.

"The mayor is like a kid at college with a credit card," Milam said. "The mayor goes out and every time he needs some new money, he just goes out and gets a new credit card."

Brainard declined to comment because litigation is pending.

The dispute began in November 2004, when the Carmel City Council voted unanimously to annex the community, bounded generally by 99th Street to the south, Pennsylvania Street to the west, 111th Street to the north and Westfield Boulevard to the east.

The community has about 2,200 homes with about 5,000 adults. Worried about a tax increase and not wanting to be under Carmel's control, many contributed financially to file a court case in 2005 against the annexation.

Hamilton Superior Court 3 Judge William Hughes ruled in 2005 that Carmel could not annex Home Place because he said it had not established an adequate plan for financing city services for the area.

Home Place residents have argued they receive law enforcement services from the Hamilton County Sheriff's Office, fire protection through a township contract with the city and street maintenance from the county. They each pay a townshipwide tax for parks, plus other taxes, such as school and library assessments.

The Court of Appeals reversed Hughes's decision in October 2007, saying Carmel had met its burden of proof to provide services for the area and sent the case back to trial court.

Home Place and Carmel then reached two separate agreements to delay the annexation proceedings for a total of six years.

In 2016, the case landed back in trial court after those agreements expired. The judge, reviewing previously submitted evidence rather than new evidence, ultimately ruled that Carmel had provided a fiscal plan to cover services.

The sticking point was fire protection. Carmel provides fire protection for the area through a contract with the township. Home Place residents argued that they could receive fire protection adequately without direct involvement by the city.

Ruling in Carmel's favor, the judge essentially said that Carmel was the entity providing fire service to Home Place. He ruled landowners failed to prove that fire protection was provided by an entity other than Carmel.

Home Place residents appealed that decision, and the appeals court Tuesday upheld the trial court's ruling.

The appeals court, in the decision, wrote that the Indiana General Assembly allows cities to annex adjacent territory under certain prerequisites that Carmel has met. Merely wishing to remain independent is not enough reason to block annexation.

All in all, though, Buschmann said his clients have done well to stop the annexation for 12 years. He said had they won their initial court case in 2005 without appeal, Home Place only would have been exempt from annexation for four years under state law.